The Feasibility of Collecting Patient Reported Pain Data Using a System Delivered Across Four Modes of Technology

Pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer: a research programme including the IMPACCT RCT

Background

Each year in England and Wales, 150,000 people die from cancer, of whom 110,000 will suffer from cancer pain. Research highlights that cancer pain remains common, severe and undertreated, and may lead to hospital admissions.

Objective

To develop and evaluate pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer.

Design

A programme of mixed-methods intervention development work leading to a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent intervention for pain management compared with usual care, including an assessment of cost-effectiveness.

Participants

Patients, including those with metastatic solid cancer (histological, cytological or radiological evidence) and/or those receiving anti-cancer therapy with palliative intent, and health professionals involved in the delivery of community-based palliative care.

Setting

For the randomised controlled trial, patients were recruited from oncology outpatient clinics and were randomly allocated to intervention or control and followed up at home.

Interventions

The Supported Self-Management intervention comprised an educational component called Tackling Cancer Pain, and an eHealth component for routine pain assessment and monitoring called PainCheck.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was pain severity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory). The secondary outcomes included pain interference (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory), participants’ pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. We estimated costs and health-related quality-of-life outcomes using decision modelling and a separate within-trial economic analysis. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year for the trial period.

Results

Work package 1 – We found barriers to and variation in the co-ordination of advanced cancer care by oncology and primary care professionals. We identified that the median time between referral to palliative care services and death for 42,758 patients in the UK was 48 days. We identified key components for self-management and developed and tested our Tackling Cancer Pain resource for acceptability. Work package 2 – Patients with advanced cancer and their health professionals recognised the benefits of an electronic system to monitor pain, but had reservations about how such a system might work in practice. We developed and tested a prototype PainCheck system. Work package 3 – We found that strong opioids were prescribed for 48% of patients in the last year of life at a median of 9 weeks before death. We delivered Medicines Use Reviews to patients, in which many medicines-related problems were identified. Work package 4 – A total of 161 oncology outpatients were randomised in our clinical trial, receiving either supported self-management (n = 80) or usual care (n = 81); their median survival from randomisation was 53 weeks. Primary and sensitivity analyses found no significant treatment differences for the primary outcome or for other secondary outcomes of pain severity or health-related quality of life. The literature-based decision modelling indicated that information and feedback interventions similar to the supported self-management intervention could be cost-effective. This model was not used to extrapolate the outcomes of the trial over a longer time horizon because the statistical analysis of the trial data found no difference between the trial arms in terms of the primary outcome measure (pain severity). The within-trial economic evaluation base-case analysis found that supported self-management reduced costs by £587 and yielded marginally higher quality-adjusted life-years (0.0018) than usual care. However, the difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two trial arms was negligible and this was not in line with the decision model that had been developed. Our process evaluation found low fidelity of the interventions delivered by clinical professionals.

Limitations

In the randomised controlled trial, the low fidelity of the interventions and the challenge of the study design, which forced the usual-care arm to have earlier access to palliative care services, might explain the lack of observed benefit. Overall, 71% of participants returned outcome data at 6 or 12 weeks and so we used administrative data to estimate costs. Our decision model did not include the negative trial results from our randomised controlled trial and, therefore, may overestimate the likelihood of cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions

Our programme of research has revealed new insights into how patients with advanced cancer manage their pain and the challenges faced by health professionals in identifying those who need more help. Our clinical trial failed to show an added benefit of our interventions to enhance existing community palliative care support, although both the decision model and the economic evaluation of the trial indicated that supported self-management could result in lower health-care costs.

Future work

There is a need for further research to (1) understand and facilitate triggers that prompt earlier integration of palliative care and pain management within oncology services; (2) determine the optimal timing of technologies for self-management; and (3) examine prescriber and patient behaviour to achieve the earlier initiation and use of strong opioid treatment.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18281271.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Multidisciplinary Software Design for the Routine Monitoring and Assessment of Pain in Palliative Care Services: The Development of PainCheck

PURPOSE

The use of health information technology (HIT) to support patient and health professional communication is emerging as a core component of modern cancer care. Approaches to HIT development for cancer care are often underreported, despite their implementation in complex, multidisciplinary environments, typically supporting patients with multifaceted needs. We describe the development and evaluation of an e-health tool for pain management in patients with advanced cancer, arising from collaboration between health researchers and a commercial software development company.

METHODS

We adopted a research-led development process, involving patients with advanced cancer and their health professionals, focusing on use within real clinical settings. A software development approach (disciplined agile delivery) was combined with health science research methods (ie, diary studies, face-to-face interviews, questionnaires, prototyping, think aloud, process reviews, and pilots). Three software iterations were managed through three disciplined agile delivery phases to develop PainCheck and prepare it for use in a clinical trial.

RESULTS

Findings from development phases (inception, elaboration, and construction) informed the design and implementation of PainCheck. During the transition phase, where PainCheck was evaluated in a randomized clinical trial, there was variation in the extent of engagement by patients and health professionals. Prior personal experience and confidence with HIT led to a gatekeeping effect among health professionals, who were reluctant to introduce PainCheck to patients. Patients who did use PainCheck seemed to benefit, and no usability issues were reported.

CONCLUSION

Health science research methods seemed to help in the development of PainCheck, although a more rigorous application of implementation science methodologies might help to elucidate further the barriers and facilitators to adoption and inform an evidence-based plan for future implementation.

Can-Pain-a digital intervention to optimise cancer pain control in the community: development and feasibility testing

Purpose

To develop a novel digital intervention to optimise cancer pain control in the community. This paper describes intervention development, content/rationale and initial feasibility testing.

Methods

Determinants of suboptimal cancer pain management were characterised through two systematic reviews; patient, caregiver and healthcare professional (HCP) interviews (n = 39); and two HCP focus groups (n = 12). Intervention mapping was used to translate results into theory-based content, creating the app “Can-Pain”. Patients with/without a linked caregiver, their general practitioners and community palliative care nurses were recruited to feasibility test Can-Pain over 4 weeks.

Results

Patients on strong opioids described challenges balancing pain levels with opioid intake, side effects and activities and communicating about pain management problems with HCPs. Can-Pain addresses these challenges through educational resources, contemporaneous short-acting opioid tracking and weekly patient-reported outcome monitoring. Novel aspects of Can-Pain include the use of contemporaneous breakthrough analgesic reports as a surrogate measure of pain control and measuring the level at which pain becomes bothersome to the individual.

Patients were unwell due to advanced cancer, making recruitment to feasibility testing difficult. Two patients and one caregiver used Can-Pain for 4 weeks, sharing weekly reports with four HCPs. Can-Pain highlighted unrecognised problems, promoted shared understanding about symptoms between patients and HCPs and supported shared decision-making.

Conclusions

Preliminary testing suggests that Can-Pain is feasible and could promote patient-centred pain management. We will conduct further small-scale evaluations to inform a future randomised, stepped-wedge trial.

Trial registration

Qualitative research: ClinicalTrials.gov, reference NCT02341846

Feasibility study: NIHR CPMS database ID 34172

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-020-05510-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Using information and communication technologies to improve the management of pain from advanced cancer in the community: Qualitative study of the experience of implementation for patients and health professionals in a trial

In cancer care, there are emerging information and communication technology systems being developed, enabling real-time information sharing between patients and health professionals. This study explored health professionals' and patients' perceptions of their engagement with an information and communication technology system for pain management to understand the mechanisms that could support implementation into routine palliative care practice. This was a qualitative study, embedded within a randomised control trial, using semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. The role of health professionals was a key component to patient engagement with the information and communication technology system. Where patients engaged with the information and communication technology system, both patients and health professionals reported benefits to system use in addition to usual care. Implementation issues were identified that can be used to guide future system development to support pain management in the context of routine clinical care in palliative care services. Where interventions are dependent on multiple providers, collaborative working and consideration of the context within which they are set are needed.

Improving the management of pain from advanced cancer in the community: study protocol for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

For patients with advanced cancer, research shows that pain is frequent, burdensome and undertreated. Evidence-based approaches to support cancer pain management have been developed but have not been implemented within the context of the UK National Health Service. This protocol is for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for a multicomponent intervention for pain management in patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This trial will assess the feasibility of implementation and uptake of evidence-based interventions, developed and piloted as part of the Improving the Management of Pain from Advanced Cancer in the Community Programme grant, into routine clinical practice and determine whether there are potential differences with respect to patient-rated pain, patient pain knowledge and experience, healthcare use, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. 160 patients will receive either the intervention (usual care plus supported self-management) delivered within the oncology clinic and palliative care services by locally assigned community palliative care nurses, consisting of a self-management educational intervention and eHealth intervention for routine pain assessment and monitoring; or usual care. The primary outcomes are to assess implementation and uptake of the interventions, and differences in terms of pain severity. Secondary outcomes include pain interference, participant pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. Outcome assessment will be blinded and patient-reported outcome measures collected via post at 6 and 12 weeks following randomisation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This RCT has the potential to significantly influence National Health Service delivery to community-based patients with pain from advanced cancer. We aim to provide definitive evidence of whether two simple interventions delivered by community palliative care nurse in palliative care that support-self-management are clinically effective and cost-effective additions to standard community palliative care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN18281271; Pre-results.

Usability testing of an electronic pain monitoring system for palliative cancer patients: A think-aloud study

Pain experienced by advanced cancer patients is often poorly controlled due to inadequate assessment. We aimed to test an electronic pain monitoring system (PainCheck) with advanced cancer patients and health professionals. In all, 29 participants (13 patients and 16 health professionals (n = 16)) used PainCheck while thinking their thoughts aloud. After the think aloud, both groups were asked about their experiences. Think-aloud and semi-structured interview data were analysed using framework analysis. Both groups were generally positive about PainCheck and found it easy to understand but they had concerns about clinical integration. Their concerns related to impact on workload, how lack of response may affect patient care and ability to engage with and use the technology. PainCheck has the capacity to be useful in clinical practice. For integration to be successful, patients and health professionals need guidance on how to use PainCheck and the expectations of users need to be clarified.

Development and feasibility of a web application to monitor patients' cancer-related pain

Background

In the outpatient setting, pain management is often inadequate in patients with cancer-related pain, because of patient- and professional-related barriers in communication and infrequent contacts. The internet may provide new opportunities for monitoring these patients.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether internet monitoring of cancer-related pain in outpatients was feasible.

Methods

We developed an internet application that contained a pain diary, eConsult, and patient pain education. In the pain diary, patients scored their pain intensity (0–10 Numeric Rating Scale) and analgesic use daily and their side effects twice a week. Feasibility was defined as the percentage of diaries patients completed during the first 6 weeks.

Results

We included 100 outpatients. Sixteen were not evaluable due to cognitive problems (2); withdrawal of participation (2); internet problems (2), or because they were too ill (10). During the first 6 weeks, 60% of 84 evaluable patients completed their diary for at least 65% of the days (median number of diaries, 21; range, 3–42) and asked for a median of five eConsults (range, 0–37). Patients most frequently used an eConsult for questions about pain or side effects, how to use their analgesics and to improve their self-management. Over the 6-week period, current pain intensity decreased from 3.3 (SD = 2) to 2.5 (SD = 1.6, p = 0.005), and worst pain intensity decreased from 5.7 (SD = 2) to 3.8 (SD = 2.0, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Internet monitoring of pain is feasible in most outpatients with cancer-related pain. The frequent use of the pain diary in the majority of patients indicates that those patients felt confident with the regular assessment of pain.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-017-3877-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

What are the current challenges of managing cancer pain and could digital technologies help?

Objectives

Pain remains a problem for people with cancer despite effective treatments being available. We aimed to explore current pain management strategies used by patients, caregivers and professionals and to investigate opportunities for digital technologies to enhance cancer pain management.

Methods

A qualitative study comprising semistructured interviews and focus groups. Patients with cancer pain, their caregivers and health professionals from Northeast Scotland were recruited from a purposive sample of general practices. Professionals were recruited from regional networks.

Results

Fifty one participants took part in 33 interviews (eight patients alone, six patient/caregiver dyads and 19 professionals) and two focus groups (12 professionals). Living with cancer was hard work for patients and caregivers and comparable to a ‘full-time job’. Patients had personal goals which involved controlling pain intensity and balancing this with analgesic use, side effects, overall symptom burden and social/physical activities.

Digital technologies were embraced by most patients, and made living life with advanced cancer easier and richer (eg, video calls with family). Technology was underutilised for pain and symptom management. There were suggestions that technology could support self-monitoring and communicating problems to professionals, but patients and professionals were concerned about technological monitoring adding to the work of managing illness.

Conclusions

Cancer pain management takes place in the context of multiple, sometimes competing personal goals. It is possible that technology could be used to help patients share individual symptom experiences and goals, thus enhancing tailored care. The challenge is for digital solutions to add value without adding undue burden.

Are intensive data collection methods in pain research feasible in those with physical disability? A study in persons with chronic pain and spinal cord injury

PURPOSE

Intensive repeated measures data collection procedures, such as ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and end-of-day (EOD) diaries, are becoming more prominent in pain research. Existing data on the feasibility of such methods is encouraging; however, almost nothing is known about feasibility in clinical populations with significant physical disabilities. Research methodology feasibility is crucial to the inclusion of individuals with physical disability in pain research given the high prevalence and impact of pain in these populations. The aim of this study was to examine study compliance, protocol acceptability, and reactivity of intensive data collection methods in adults with chronic pain and spinal cord injury (SCI).

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from a 7-day EMA and EOD diary study in a sample of 131 community dwelling adults with SCI.

RESULTS

Results showed rates of missing data ranged from 18.4 to 22.8% across measures. Participant compliance was related to time of day/presence of audible prompts, mobility aid use, race, and baseline levels of pain and pain interference, with more missing data at wake and bedtimes/no prompts, and for those who used hand-held mobility devices, identified as black/African American, and/or reported higher baseline pain and pain interference. Participants rated the study methodology as generally highly acceptable and expressed willingness to participate in similar studies of much longer duration. There was no evidence of reactivity, defined as temporal shifts in pain or pain interference ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, intensive pain data collection is feasible in persons with SCI with no evidence that the methodology impacts pain intensity or pain interference ratings.